What if: The US did not drop the bombs?

I have also read somewhere that the mortality rate of the atomic bomb survivors was lower than the Japanese average at least in the early post war years and perhaps to date. Unfortunatly I'm not aure where I read it or how trustworthy it was. It does however not seem unreasonable if you think about it for a bit.

 

There was (on that link I cannot find) a mention that the deaths from renal failure, or even it's appearance in both cities was lower than the general population. Now that is an anomaly when those exposed are a "small section" compared to the entire population of Japan.

I have no idea why that should be. Found the link, that business about the renal failure/disease is in there somewhere, but this part is about "radiation induced" mutations.

"A total of 289,868 locus tests, based on 28 different protein phenotypes and using one-dimensional electrophoresis to detect variant proteins, has yielded one probable mutation in the offspring of "proximally exposed" parents, who received an estimated average gonadal exposure of 31 to 39 rem in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no mutations in 208,196 locus tests involving children of "distally exposed" parents, who had essentially no radiation exposure." (emphasis mine)

"Exposed individuals who survived the acute effects, however, were later found to suffer increased incidence of cancer of essentially all organs. The cancers occurred years to decades later. Excess cancers are still being detected in this population, now more than 50 years after the bombing. Excess cancer means that these individuals are more likely to get cancer than other Japanese. The cancers they get are (however) in no way different from spontaneous cancer in other Japanese. Animal studies have detected genetic effects from these sublethal doses: mutations that occur in offspring, perhaps several generations later. No such effects have been detected in offspring of Japanese survivors."

See:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=349803

 

There is no question to the fact that saving the lives of Americans in particular American service men was a very important factor. However you contended that saveing the lives of others played no part at all. Your quote does not address that at all. Here's another counter point:
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1252514-A-Defense-of-the-Atomic-Bomb-Use-in-WWII

 

This place needs a chat room.

Initial deaths and injuries are only one part of of the bombs effects. Decreased birth rates, increased birth defects, etc. are also factors. Conventional munitions will make your ears ring; however, atomic munitions will give your children a club foot.

no what I said was:

The "Okinawa Formula" could have only been available after June 23. By that time the bombs and their mechanisms for delivery had already been developed and targets had been selected. The Bombs were going to Japan.

The humanitarian angle is merely a coralary and was (MAYBE) given notice during the decision making process. I do not and will not believe it influenced the use of the weapons. Until I see a first hand reference attributable prior to 6 August 1945 I will continue to consider such notions political maneuvering and posturing.

 

Did you read this part of the fifty year study?

"A total of 289,868 locus tests, based on 28 different protein phenotypes and using one-dimensional electrophoresis to detect variant proteins, has yielded one probable mutation in the offspring of "proximally exposed" parents, who received an estimated average gonadal exposure of 31 to 39 rem in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There were no mutations in 208,196 locus tests involving children of "distally exposed" parents, who had essentially no radiation exposure." (emphasis mine)

Not too many "club-feet" in the mix huh? And just for a BTW, there were about 40,000 who died after the Tokyo firebombings from their burns which they survived initially, and then even more who fell to infections of their wounds. So, even conventional firebombings have "after-effects" in the short term.

But they would be more akin to those who succumbed from radiation burns and infections. But they cannot be eliminated from the total anymore than those from the atomics can.

 

Sure did.....do you think I didn't take that into account?

check out this little ditty:

I don't see how it can affect one group and not the other.

Somewhere I have a reference to a genetic marker / predispostion in survivors and their children of the blasts and those at the Hanford site. I'll find it.

I am still not willing to concede that the dropping of the atomic bombs was done with any humanitarian intent, regardless of it's outcome.

 

Hey "jughead", I can think of one weird reason. The workers at Hanford were exposed for greater lenghts of time than those at Nagasaki. Hanford was the Plutonium plant. The workers at the Oak Ridge plant would be comparable to those at Hiroshima, but again length of exposure time must be taken into account as well.

Then there is the "distance" from the source, 2000 feet for the explosions, and probably very close exposure for those producing the fissionable materials. And the times at which both studies were published. Your's was from 2000, mine was from 1980 so the results and conclusions may have changed in those twenty years as well.

And I won't dispute or defend the bomb being used for a "humanitarian" intent. But I also don't think that was considered as either pro or con. It was only used to reduce the time the war would continue, and only in that instance could it be considered "humane".

A war's extension in time is certainly less humane than ending it; is it not?

 

Either that or those that recieved the higher doses the cells were killed instead of deformed and the radiation only remained at a damaging level for a short period of time; whereas, those working in the manufacturing were exposed repeatedly to the same levels over a period of time.

Very good points indeed. I know that if I was staring down the barrel of invading mainland Japan I know how I would vote and I wouldn't take into consideration how humane it was.

I don't theink the Japanese would have even paused to consider the consequences if the tables were turned and they had the ability to produce and deliver an atomic weapon......Us or them and I always choose Us.

 

Is it just me, or has this thread gotten a bit off topic, it seems its went from "What if the US hadn't dropped to bomb?" to "Was it morel to drop the A-Bomb."

 

I think that the information put forth by various Rogues have illustrated the point of both themes, and that in itself both themes are related. Besides, if the thread got too far off the prescribed subject matter, the mods would have swooped down like the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz and shut it down (again).

It did make for some very informative AND entertaining reading I might add....

 

It was moraly obligatory; but, not moraly praise worthy.

As often is the case one subject will morph into something else as new insights and opinions are brought forth. That's the beauty of group dynamics- action and reaction.

 

There he goes with them big words again....

 

Yeah that may be true, but, can you tell me where I picked that phrase up?

 

At least the group isn't trying to compare and contrast morals and ethics in the discussion, now THAT would go way off topic! As a curious, was the other poster making a sly reference to mushrooms with his morel post?

That far off and it would without doubt bring down the mods like the aforementioned flying monkeys.

 

I got a chuckle out of that as well;however, I do not feel the need to comment on other posters spelling or the aparent lack of education that it infers as that would be rude and un flattering to myself and the poster. Just as rude in fact for the mis-speller to not take the due dilligence and courtesy to spell check or proof read their post prior to submission. Many the time I have found myself going back and editing a post to avoid looking like a booger eating fool lacking all syntax and grammar.

Which is why I am sure the moderation team has made a point to discourage commenting on other posters lack of command of the english language.

That's just my opinion though......

Brad

 

I didn't know if it was a sly reference to "mushroom clouds" using a double meaning or something. I don't hit on anybody for spelling errors (if I can help it), since I'm not the most vigilant of posters in that regard. And I don't like to admit the number of times I have edited for spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Then I post and see some other "DOH!" and have to go in there and try to fix it before I get too many LOLs!

 

Holy Schnitzel!!! I had no idea............how long has that been there?

 

Maybe not.....check your PMs